[73100] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP-based blackholing/hijacking patented in Australia?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Bonomi)
Thu Aug 12 15:40:01 2004
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:39:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:47:22 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Henry Linneweh <hrlinneweh@sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: BGP-based blackholing/hijacking patented in Australia?
>
> --- "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Henry Linneweh wrote:
>>>
>>> --- "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Petri Helenius wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We have had running code for this since early this year, so depending
>>>>> on the date they filed, prior art exists well documented.
>>>> (blueprints obviously predate running code)
>>>>
>>>> everyone has gone patent crazy, every time a new concept is developed some
>>>> company applies for patent. is this the future or rfcs then?
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>
>>> Well if it will harm the community, would it be possible to auto copyright
>>> rfc's, so that the authors of a concept can prevent someone from sipping
>>> their effort off?
RFCs -- like aything else -- _are_ copyrighted, under current law. However,
almost all, if not all, of them contain express permission for anyone to
copy/reproduce them.
Copyright of a process description, furthermore, does *NOT* preclude someone
from -using- the the process that was so described.
Aside from those 'inconsiderate' facts getting in the way, you don't have a
bad idea. :)
>>> Ignorance at the top doesn't mean we can't be like always leading the
>>> way......
>>>
>>> -Henry
>>>
>>>
>
>> one issue with that might be that the patents are
>> taken out on variations of the
>> core idea, imho the variations are not new ideas but
>> legally they seem to get
>> away with it
>>
>> Steve
>
> ok so then in the copyright let us see if can cover
> all variations of the original concept as belonging to
> the original author or author's as a test case for
> adaption and modificaiton to copyright law. I strongly
> believe in the protection of original idea's in
> reference to rfc's
Sorry, copyright doesn't work that way. The _expression_ the concept is
protected. *NOT* the underlying concept itself.
To protect a 'process', or 'mechanism', you are into the realm of _patent_
law.
